What does this Admiral clause mean...
Discussion
In re-reading my admiral cover for the carrying petrol thread, I came across an exception of which I am not sure of the meaning.
Anyone shed any light?
Bert
Anyone shed any light?
Admiral said:
You will not be covered for any liabilities you may have for any of the following:
...
Any accident, injury, loss or damage arising from the use of public emergency
service vehicles, military and law enforcement vehicles, motor coaches
and omnibuses, tramways (including trolley-buses) or any vehicles on rails,
contractors plant and equipment.
It seems to me that it is the word "use" here that stops clear meaning. "Use" by whom?...
Any accident, injury, loss or damage arising from the use of public emergency
service vehicles, military and law enforcement vehicles, motor coaches
and omnibuses, tramways (including trolley-buses) or any vehicles on rails,
contractors plant and equipment.
Bert
So there's a turn up. It could be to do with DOC which is listed in the certificate as to whether you have it or not.
In my portal on Adnmiral's website I can see 2015 certs (covering the same date range). One which has DOC and one which doesn't.
So now I have to find out which one is the right one. I always want DOC cover and I suspect a fast one going on here by accident or intention. When I renewed, the first quote was much higher than the previous. Lots of chat on the phone got the price down. I am guessing that one cert was pre haggle and one after. Although at no point in the haggle did we discuss removing the DOC.
As I am an anally retentive t
t, I will have in my filing system my contemporaneous notes plus copies of the docs at the time to help me unravel this.
Fortunately I don't use DOC much, but thinking you have it and not having it is not exactly useful. Slippery buggers these insurance companies. That'll teach me.
Bert
In my portal on Adnmiral's website I can see 2015 certs (covering the same date range). One which has DOC and one which doesn't.
So now I have to find out which one is the right one. I always want DOC cover and I suspect a fast one going on here by accident or intention. When I renewed, the first quote was much higher than the previous. Lots of chat on the phone got the price down. I am guessing that one cert was pre haggle and one after. Although at no point in the haggle did we discuss removing the DOC.
As I am an anally retentive t
t, I will have in my filing system my contemporaneous notes plus copies of the docs at the time to help me unravel this.Fortunately I don't use DOC much, but thinking you have it and not having it is not exactly useful. Slippery buggers these insurance companies. That'll teach me.
Bert
ZOLLAR said:
DOC isn't used in the process of "haggling"
DOC is only given if you meet certain criteria, if you have a lease car, work with cars (taxi, mechanic etc) or are under the age of 25 you won't have it (other exceptions exist too)
Removing DOC isn't an option so it won't reduce or increase premium.
Indeed wasn't expecting it to be part of deal doing (especially as it wasn't mentioned). The issue is that I think I don't have it and should have it (acdording to what looks like the current documents). So not too stressed about it although I have used DOC on odd occasions in this policy year. My mistake is that I checked all the docs that came through initially. Had a long conversation about how the NCB is allocated on a fleet policy which got the premium close enough and thgen didn't go through again with a fine enough tooth comb. I'm sure it'll be resolvable.DOC is only given if you meet certain criteria, if you have a lease car, work with cars (taxi, mechanic etc) or are under the age of 25 you won't have it (other exceptions exist too)
Removing DOC isn't an option so it won't reduce or increase premium.
Edited by ZOLLAR on Tuesday 26th May 12:00
Back to the original question, the exclusion must be to do with DOC on those specific vehicles. As that's the only thing that makes sense.
Bert
so I spoke to a nice Welsh man at Admiral Towers who said that despite the online documents not saying I had DOC cover, I do in fact have it.
I asked about the discrepancy of the paperwork and he was going to check it and get it changed if it needed it (which it clearly does).
So the question is...is it enough to get verbal confirmation (accompanied by my contemporaneous notes) of DOC or should I not rely on that until the documents say so?
Bert
I asked about the discrepancy of the paperwork and he was going to check it and get it changed if it needed it (which it clearly does).
So the question is...is it enough to get verbal confirmation (accompanied by my contemporaneous notes) of DOC or should I not rely on that until the documents say so?
Bert
Obviously it's better to have the docs saying what they should.
But I think in terms of my agreement with Admiral, they can make agreements with me verbally.
Regarding a roadside stop, the car (someone elses driven by me under DOC cover) is unlikely to be a problem as it has to have its own insurance anyway (an Admiral condition) and in the absence of the docs which I don't carry, plod would have no reason to believe I was uninsured - they'd phone and get the same answer as me. Maybe!!
I'll chase the docs down
But I think in terms of my agreement with Admiral, they can make agreements with me verbally.
Regarding a roadside stop, the car (someone elses driven by me under DOC cover) is unlikely to be a problem as it has to have its own insurance anyway (an Admiral condition) and in the absence of the docs which I don't carry, plod would have no reason to believe I was uninsured - they'd phone and get the same answer as me. Maybe!!
I'll chase the docs down
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff